in the course of the long discussions which followed as to the exact meaning and extent of the obligation thereby imposed, persistent diplomatic pressure at last prevailed upon the British Government to give up the Protectorate it had acquired long before the treaty was signed over the Indians of the Mosquito Coast. The French intervention in Mexico coincided in point of time with the great American Civil War; but the Federal Government, preoccupied as it was, did not neglect to protest whenever opportunity offered, not indeed against the attack on Mexico by France, but against the attempt on the part of the French army of occupation to destroy the Republican institutions of the country and set up an Emperor, contrary, it was maintained, to the wishes of the great majority of the Mexican people. The downfall of the Confederacy enabled the administration at Washington to act with greater vigor than before; and its energetic remonstrances, coupled with the knowledge that if they were disregarded force would in all probability be used, caused France to withdraw her troops and led to the speedy downfall of the unfortunate Emperor Maximilian.

In so far as the shutting out of the European state-system from American soil is concerned, we may assert that the United States acts, and will continue to act, as warder of the continent. Whether it will endeavor to exercise any superintendence over international affairs of a purely American character is perhaps a little more doubtful. Of recent years there has been a tendency in that direction; but it has been met by another tendency, perhaps equally strong, not to sanction a policy which would entangle the country in complications outside its own territory. Thus the threat of 1881 to restrain Chili in her dealings with conquered Peru was toned down in 1882 to a proffer of kindly offices in reconciling the two Republics; and the President withdrew from the Senate the Treaty of 1884, by which the United States agreed to find the capital for the construction of an

oceanic canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the territory of Nicaragua, and covenanted to receive in return two-thirds of the revenue arising from the traffic and to hold in joint sovereignty with Nicaragua the strip of land through which the canal was to pass. It is necessary to speak with caution in describing the present position of the United States with respect to the other powers of the American continent; but the facts seem hardly consistent with the old doctrine of the absolute Equality of Independent States. The words of Mr. Fish in his Report of July, 1870, to President Grant more accurately define it. The Secretary of State says, "The United States, by the priority of their independence, by the stability of their institutions, by the regard of their people for the forms of law, by their resources as a government, by their naval power, by their commercial enterprise, by the attractions which they offer to European immigration, by the prodigious internal development of their resources and wealth, and by the intellectual life of their population, occupy of necessity a prominent position on this continent which they neither can nor should abdicate, which entitles them to a leading voice, and which imposes on them duties of right and of honor regarding American questions, whether those questions affect emancipated colonies, or colonies still subject to European dominion." This statement is correct

both in fact and in theory, if we except from the last clause of it the internal affairs of the few remaining European colonies in the New World. It will hardly be contended that the Government of Washington has any right, moral or legal, to qualify the independence of the countries to which they belong by meddling with their domestic affairs.1

1 For the Monroe Doctrine and its various phases see Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the United States, §§ 57 et seq.; Wheaton, International Law (Dana's ed.), note 36; and American History Leaflets, No. 4. The intervention of President Cleveland in 1895 and 1896 in the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela as to the boundary between the territory of the latter and British Guiana, has given to the Monroe Doctrine a widely extended significance.

§ 137.

The principle of Equality, with the limitation suggested · in the previous sections, pervades and influences the whole of International Law. But the definite rules

Matters of ceremony and etiquette connected with the doctrine of Equality.

that can be traced to it are few in number and not of first-rate importance. They relate to matters of ceremony and etiquette, which are the outward signs of equality or the reverse. The principle appears to demand that all independent states should be treated alike; but though this is possible in some matters, such as firing salutes or supplying guards of honor, it is impossible in others, such as the order of sitting at a state ceremonial or the order of signing an international document. To meet the difficulties occasioned by these instances and others of a similar kind, rules have been devised which reconcile the theoretical equality of states with the precedence which it is necessary should exist among sovereigns and their representatives. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries an exaggerated importance was attached to questions of etiquette. Readers of Macaulay's History will remember the graphic description given in Chapter XXII. of the squabbles of the Plenipotentiaries assembled at the Conference of Ryswick; and those who are desirous of acquiring further information on the subject will find what they want in Bernard's Lectures on Diplomacy. An amusing instance of the trivialities out of which disputes could grow is afforded by Sir John Finett's account of the marriage festivities of the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England, and Frederick, the Elector Palatine. The worthy knight was Master of the Ceremonies at the English Court, and evidently took himself and his official duties very seriously. We subjoin a short quotation from his Observations touching Forren Ambassadors, preserving the original spelling. He writes, "At this time the French and Venetian Ambassadors invited to the marriage were not free from Punctillios. That made

an effort to precede the Prince. This stood upon it that they were not to sit at the table without Chaires (though the Prince . . . had but a stoole, the Count Palatine and the Princess, onely for the honour of the day having Chayres) and insisting upon a formality that the Carver was not to stand above him; but neither of them prevailed in their reasonlesse pretences. All ceremonial disputes, however, were not so fantastic or so easily settled as this one. Occasionally they led to bloodshed, and were the pretexts if not the actual causes of war, as when in 1672 Charles II. of England commenced hostilities against the United Provinces, ostensibly because one of his royal yachts had not been properly saluted when passing through the Dutch fleet near the coast of Zealand.

$138.

Rules of precedence of states sentatives.

and their repre

But it must not be supposed that etiquette is altogether unimportant, or that states in modern times have ceased to care for it, because they no longer go to war about such matters as titles and salutes. It is necessary for the dignified and orderly conduct of international affairs that ceremonies should exist and that rules of precedence should be laid down and accepted. Courtesy demands that states should abide by these rules in their mutual intercourse. The power which neglects them degrades itself in the Society of Nations to the level of a rude boor in the Society of Individuals. Moreover some of them are symbolic. The honor paid to the flag, for instance, when it is saluted by a foreign man-of-war entering a friendly port is something more than a piece of etiquette. To omit the salute would imply that the state visited was inferior to other states which still received the customary honor; and therefore failure to fire the usual number of guns would be justly resented. But it is hardly likely that such a case will arise in future, and, if it does, we may safely say that the peace of nations will not be disturbed by it.

Many of the old difficulties have been settled by express or tacit agreement, others have disappeared with lapse of time and change of circumstances, and with regard to those which still remain a disposition to compromise and to avoid elevating trifles into matters of supreme importance happily prevails. We will give a brief sketch of existing arrangements, dealing first with

Rules of precedence for states and their representatives.

The relative rank of states and sovereigns has never been determined by general agreement. A fixed order of precedence is quite compatible with equality before the law; but, inasmuch as the pride of rulers is involved in questions concerning it, no such order has ever been accepted. The attempt which was made at the Congress of Vienna of 1815 to classify the states of Europe for ceremonial purposes failed entirely. Custom has, however, given birth to a few rules. It used to be held that states which enjoyed royal honors took precedence of states which did not. But as the enjoyment of royal honors means little more than the right of sending diplomatic ministers of the first class, and that right is now accorded to all independent states, the distinction based upon it has become obsolete and unmeaning. The rules in existence now are as follows: (a) Fully sovereign states take precedence of states under the power of a Suzerain. (b) Precedence is accorded to the Pope by Roman Catholic states, but not by Protestant states or by states which hold the faith of the Greek Church. (c) Sovereigns who are crowned heads take precedence of those who are not, such as Grand Dukes or Electors; but powerful Republics, such as the United States and France, rank along with the great monarchical states. The old view that a Republic was inferior to an Empire or a Kingdom has now but little influence; but two centuries ago it was enormously strong. The Dutch had great difficulty in making good their position at the Congress of Münster and on other occasions; and